>From: "Daniel J. Matyola" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >My comments were in reference to those who recently said that they do not >submit to or comment on the PUG because it is full of inferior work. >Mostly, however, I was trying to use a little humor, and a little >sarcasm, to try to persuade a few more people to participate in the >PUG. Even if it isn't a good instument for serious photographic work, >it still can be fun and interesting if people submit photos, view the >photos, and comment when they have time. >
I must be a glutton for punishment... :-) Dan... First off, that's not precisely what I said. But, let's say the work were to be 'inferior' at large. Why would I want to waste my time looking at inferior work or commenting on it, when it's much more fun to view work that rises above the norm and learn from viewing that? I wouldn't go out and purchase a coffee table book of bad photographs in order to learn how to make good ones (but it wouldn't surprise me if there couldn't be a market for such a thing). Here's the way I see it and this is just my opinion. If the 'Gallery' is not supposed to represent the best we can do, but is instead a catch-all photo-sharing mechanism, there are plenty of ways to accomplish that. PESO's for one, or make use of any number of photo sharing sites. A Flickr or photo.net account could be opened with a publicly known password and a new themed presentation could be created each month. There would not need to be a deadline as participants could post their photo at any time during the themed month, and no single person would have the burden of maintaining it. If a person posted a photo and then thought better of it, they could remove it, and possibly post another. It would not be static, but one that continually evolves. If one wants to have a photo sharing/commenting/learning experience, that would seem to be much more flexible. (Note: I realize the idea coulld present some security/mischief/nefarious behavior issues). I have always thought that a 'Gallery' was supposed to be something special. I don't presume to speak for, think for, write for, in any way comment for, or influence Adelheid. However a fair amount of time and effort has gone into the PUG both in software and in the monthly effort of maintaining it. If it is not something special, then I question the reason for it being called a gallery and even for having a maintainer. When I first joined the PDML in 1999 (I think my first post was '97/'98) I sort of viewed the gallery as a showcase for what could be created with Pentax equipment. At that time the PUG was loosely linked to the PDML and the PDML had a link on the Pentax website. Dan, I'm not and never was attempting to put people or their photos down. I think we all know that even the best of photographers have a very low hit rate when it comes to 'keepers', even those that are considered 'pros'. I generally enjoy the PUG, but more than having a large number of participants, since it's called a gallery, I wish it would be more of a high quality showcase. A lot of high quality photos would be ideal. Tom C. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
